Justice Barrett’s Recusal Leads to 4-4 Split, Upholding State Court’s Ban on Publicly Funded Religious Education
On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare 4-4 decision in the case of Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, effectively blocking the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would have been the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The tie vote leaves intact the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that the school’s approval violated both state and federal constitutional provisions prohibiting government funding of religious institutions.
The deadlock resulted from Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal, due to her prior affiliation with Notre Dame Law School, whose religious liberty clinic represented the school. As a result, only eight justices participated, leading to the evenly split decision. In such instances, the lower court’s ruling stands, but no national precedent is set.
The case centered on the application by Oklahoma’s charter school board to establish St. Isidore as a virtual Catholic charter school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had previously ruled that, as a public school, St. Isidore must remain non-sectarian, and that state funding for a religious institution would contravene constitutional mandates.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared divided. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the extent of state involvement in the operation of a religious charter school, suggesting it might differ from previous cases where the Court allowed public funds to flow to religious entities. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern that denying the charter could lead to broader restrictions on faith-based services. Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan warned that approving the school might compel states to fund religious schools with curricula vastly different from traditional public schools.
The Supreme Court’s tie leaves the issue unresolved at the national level, maintaining the status quo that public charter schools must be secular. However, the decision does not preclude future challenges, and similar cases could return to the Court, especially if all nine justices participate.
In the U.S. Supreme Court, a tie vote results in the affirmation of the lower court’s decision, without setting a binding precedent. This outcome is binding only on the parties involved and does not establish a rule for other cases.